4 ms·
If you want to dismiss correlation altogether you should really just argue that all medical research and discussion is useless (which I wouldn't consider an abs
by kingkongrevenge 18y ago
If you want to dismiss correlation altogether you should really just argue that all medical research and discussion is useless (which I wouldn't consider an absurd position). You can tear apart pretty much any correlation backed assertions with "what-ifs." One simply must be reasonable.
If sunscreen sales clearly negatively correlated to melanoma, that would be a point worthy of consideration in this discussion, no? It is reasonable to consider this lack of correlation as a piece of evidence in support of the discussed framework. Apply your own grain of salt: this is not a scientific publication and the audience is assumed to be a reasonable person.
There would be practically nothing to say in the "non-sciences" (medicine, economics, etc.) if one were not allowed to admit "circumstantial evidence."
- mechanical_fish 18y agoI'm not dismissing this correlation. I was even generous enough to assume that it's not being made up. (Only half of it is cited, and the citation is to a Newsweek article which has no footnotes of its own.) I'm just finished with it. It doesn't have much explanatory power. It fits a big universe of hypotheses, some of which I have outlined above. It's provocative, which is not the same thing as conclusive. But consider me provoked. I'm curious. Bring on the science. Until someone brings some more studies to the table there's really not much more to say. I'd rather spend my afternoon getting some carefully modulated sun exposure. ;)